Paragraph Break at Greek Esther 2:5?

In a comment to a previous post, Peter Head noted the presence of reading aids on a page of the Esther part of Ra 967. I have now looked at the available digital images for Esther, and it is clear that these marks do break the text into various sense units. Sometimes they mark what might be equivalent to a comma (e.g. see image below after βενεαμιν) or period (e.g. see image below after αστιν) and at other times, perhaps, they mark a break between paragraphs. It's the latter issue I want to present here and ask for your input.

Sinaiticus at Esther 2:5

This appears to be a standard example of ΚΑΙ in ekthesis to indicate a paragraph break between verse 4 and verse 5. The previous line is left half empty with punctuation indicating a break. The same ekthesis is in B at the same place.

Rahlfs's Text at Esther 2:5

Rahlfs's Edition followed suit by creating a paragraph break between verse 4 and verse 5

Ra 967 f. 40r at Esther 2:5

Here we see the reading aid marking a sense division between verse 4 and verse 5 in the 2/3C papyrus MS, albeit lacking the οὕτως. 

Gӧttingen Esther at 2:5

Ra 967 exercised some influence on the editor of Esther in terms of the layout for the text, for now there is no paragraph break between verse 4 and verse 5, only a period dividing them. But, if I'm reading matters correctly, the reading aid in Ra 967 could have provided a clue to the editor that there may have been a larger sense division in Ra 967, since the scribe of that MS did not use ekthesis or other means for marking paragraphs. Rather he used the same reading aid that he used for all other sense divisions in the text.

It does appear that the 4C scribe of S followed his exemplar by indicating a paragraph break in the text between verse 4 and 5. Did he interpret a reading aid as in 967 as marking a paragraph break here? Or did he invent the paragraph break? Can we know one way or the other? What do you think?

Jerome’s Bibliology and the Greek Additions to Esther

Jerome of Stridon translated the Hebrew text into Latin in the late fourth and early fifth century. The book of Esther is in Jerome’s canon, as it was in most early Christians’, but there was the additional question about its text form, since the Greek version is some fifty-per-cent longer than the Hebrew. When he comes to the book of Esther, he composed a preface to the book and prefaces before each of the Greek additions, all basically indicating what was translated from the Hebrew and what came from the common edition, i.e. the Latin translation of the Seventy. He moved these additions to the end of the book, and in the preface to Addition F, he says he put the obelus, that is a spear, beside them.

Two Examples from Jerome’s Letters

Evidently, the matter is more complicated in Jerome’s actual practice. In Ep. 49(48).14, writing a defense to Pammachius (ca. 393–394), who perceived Jerome in his books against Jovinian to be elevating chastity above marriage, Jerome launched into a discussion of what is “good.” From Exod 3:14 (“I am who I am”), he settles on this principle, “If you compare every created thing (assumed to be good) with God, it has no existence.” In support of the converse, he then cites Esther Add C22: as Esther says, ne tradas hereditatem tuam his, qui non sunt, uel idolis scilicet uel daemonibus. If God, “who is who he is,” is good, then “those who are not” are evil idols and demons. They exist, but because they are lost (periit) to God, they are said not to be.

Be that as it may, for our purpose, Jerome appeals to Esther Add C22 to establish a theological point about what is good and what is not good in categories of “who is” and “those who are not.” In fact, he uses Add C22 to establish the opposite point of Exod 3:14. Perhaps, one could argue that he’s only using Add C22 illustratively and not as authoritative scripture. But that appears to be a stretch here.

In Ep. 130.4 (ca. 414 AD), he says, “Demetrias cried like Esther to the Lord (Esth Add C27), ‘You know that I hate the sign of my high estate’—that is to say, the crown which she wore as queen—’and that I hate it as a filthy rag’.” Here, Jerome compares the virtue of Demetrias, a chaste woman, with the virtue of Esther, and once again, Jerome uses a passage from the Greek additions to Esther not found in the Hebrew. One could suggest here that Jerome uses Add C27 for a simple example of piety and not for doctrine. That is, in this case, Jerome is appealing to the edificatory nature of this passage, not any perceived authority.

Conclusions

Jerome’s bibliology includes canonical, apocryphal, and useful-edificatory books (cf. Prologue to Solomonic Books and elsewhere). The latter category consists of books neither canonical nor apocryphal; that is, books neither authoritative for doctrine nor the dangerous works of heretics. Does Jerome’s use of the additions to Esther fit this category in a similar way to how he treats Judith and Tobit? It seems his appeal to C27 does, but his use of C22 does not so easily fit.

More work needs to be done here, but we should pause before immediately claiming Jerome was pro Hebraica Veritas only or exclusively. His views are more complicated than appear at first blush.